nach oben

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

Erschienen in:

15.02.2021 | UNCERTAINTIES IN LCA

Integrating life cycle assessment (LCA) and quantitative risk assessment (QRA) to address model uncertainties: defining a landfill reference case under varying environmental and engineering conditions

verfasst von: Giovanna Sauve, Karel Van Acker

Erschienen in: The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment | Ausgabe 3/2021

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Purpose

Model uncertainties in life cycle assessment (LCA) can arise due to the lack or limited knowledge of the system (epistemic), or due to the inherent spatial and/or temporal variability of the processes that characterize it (stochastic). Scenario analysis is often used to address such uncertainties. However, the analysis does not provide information on which scenario is more representative of the system, or more likely to occur. To account for model uncertainties in LCA, the approach presented here estimates the likelihood of occurrence of the scenarios by assigning probabilities to the events characterizing them.

Method

An integrated life cycle assessment (LCA) and quantitative risk assessment (QRA) approach was developed to include the likelihood of occurrence of future events, and their consequences, in the definition of one representative scenario. The integration of the two tools was conceived at a framework level, with the inclusion of probability estimates as weighting factors for the scenario results. These probability estimates for each scenario allow improving the spatial and temporal representativeness of the model of the system.

The approach was applied to a landfill case study to test its applicability in defining the impacts of a landfill reference scenario. Twelve scenarios were developed to represent the potential variation of landfill conditions over time. In particular, the degradation and failure of the containment systems, and the flooding of the site, were the main events considered in the scenario definition. An event tree was built to estimate the probability of occurrence of each scenario.

Results

Expected values and standard deviations were computed for all impact categories based on the impacts and their probabilities. Additional information on the probability of obtaining a certain impact was further provided by the impact curve built as function of the impacts and their cumulative probability.

Conclusions

Overall, the results of the study highlight the potential of the approach and the relevance of the information that the results can provide on the impact of a landfill, and more generally a system, under varying conditions over time.

Vorheriger Artikel Investigating the management challenges of the EU Ecolabel through multi-stakeholder surveys

Nächster Artikel Accounting for correlational structures in stochastic comparative life cycle assessments through copula modeling

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Arvidsson R, Tillman A-M, Sandén BA, Janssen M, Nordelöf A, Kushnir D, Molander S (2017) Environmental assessment of emerging technologies: recommendations for prospective LCA. J Ind Ecol 00:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12690CrossRef

Aven T, Renn O (2009) On risk defined as an event where the outcome is uncertain. J Risk Res 12(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870802488883CrossRef

Bedford T, Cooke R (2001) Probabilistic risk analysis: foundations and methods. Cambridge University Press

Belevi H, Baccini P (1989) Long-term behavior of municipal solid waste landfills. Waste Manage Res 7(1):43–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X8900700106CrossRef

Benetto E, Dujet C (2003) Uncertainty analysis and MCDA: a case study in the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) practice, (June) 1–11

Benetto E, Dujet C, Rousseaux P (2006) Possibility theory: a new approach to uncertainty analysis? Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(2):114–116. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2005.06.212CrossRef

Benetto E, Dujet C, Rousseaux P (2008) Integrating fuzzy multicriteria analysis and uncertainty evaluation in life cycle assessment. Environ Model Softw 23(12):1461–1467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2008.04.008CrossRef

Bisinella V (2017) Future scenario development within life cycle assessment of waste management systems

Björklund AE (2002) Survey of approaches to improve reliability in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7(2):64–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978849CrossRef

Calderón Márquez AJ, Cassettari Filho PC, Rutkowski EW, de Lima Isaac R (2019) Landfill mining as a strategic tool towards global sustainable development. J Clean Prod 226:1102–1115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.057CrossRef

Clavreul J, Guyonnet D, Christensen TH (2012) Quantifying uncertainty in LCA-modelling of waste management systems. Waste Manage 32(12):2482–2495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.07.008CrossRef

Cleary J (2009) Life cycle assessments of municipal solid waste management systems: a comparative analysis of selected peer-reviewed literature. Environ Int. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2009.07.009CrossRef

Cucurachi S, Giesen C, Van Der, Guinée J (2018) Ex-ante LCA of emerging technologies. Procedia CIRP 69(May):463–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.11.005CrossRef

Damgaard A, Manfredi S, Merrild H, Stensøe S, Christensen TH (2011) LCA and economic evaluation of landfill leachate and gas technologies. Waste Manage 31(7):1532–1541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.02.027CrossRef

Danthurebandara M (2015) Environmental and economic performance of enhanced landfill mining

Darbra RM, Eljarrat E, Barcelo D (2008) How to measure uncertainties in environmental risk assessment. Trends Anal Chem 27(4):377–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2008.02.005CrossRef

Doka G (2003) Life cycle inventory of wastewater treatment. In: Life cycle inventories of waste treatment services—Ecoinvent Report 13(54)

Doka G (2009) Life cycle inventories of waste treatment services. ecoinvent report. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories 13

Doka G, Hischier R (2005a) Waste treatment and assessment of long-term emissions. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(1):77–84. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2004.12.181.9

Doka G, Life D, Assessments C (2005b) Assessing long-term effects of municipal solid waste. Proceedings of the 1st BOKU Waste Conference. Waste Management in the Focus of Controversial Interests, Vienna, Austria, 4-6 April 2005

European Commission - JRC (2011) ILCD handbook: recommendations for life cycle impact assessment in the European context. Vasa. https://doi.org/10.2788/33030

Ferdous R, Khan F, Sadiq R, Amyotte P, Veitch B (2013) Analyzing system safety and risks under uncertainty using a bow-tie diagram: an innovative approach. Process Saf Environ Prot 91(1–2):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2011.08.010CrossRef

Flemstrom K, Carlson R, Erixon M (2004) Relationships between life cycle assessment and risk assessment

Gusca J, Fainzilbergs M, Muizniece I (2015) Life cycle assessment of landfill mining project. Energy Procedia. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2015.06.047CrossRef

Haes HAUDe, Heijungs R, Suh S (2004) Three strategies to overcome the limitations of life-cycle assessment. J Industrial Ecol 8(3):19–32. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1162/1088198042442351

Heijungs R, Huijbregts MaJ (2004) A review of approaches to treat uncertainty in LCA. IEMSs 2004 International Congress 8. http://www.iemss.org/iemss2004/pdf/lca/heijarev.pdf

Hennequin T, Sørup HJD, Dong Y, Arnbjerg-Nielsen K (2018) A framework for performing comparative LCA between repairing flooded houses and construction of dikes in non-stationary climate with changing risk of flooding. Sci Total Environ 642:473–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.404CrossRef

Hermann R, Baumgartner RJ, Vorbach S, Wolfsberger T, Ragossnig A, Pomberger R (2016) Holistic assessment of a landfill mining pilot project in Austria: methodology and application. Waste Manage Res 34(7):646–657. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X16644517CrossRef

Hjelmar O, Andersen L, Hansen J (2000) Leachate emissions from landfills. AFR Rapport, (January). Retrieved from http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/afr-r-265-se.pdf

Höjer M, Ahlroth S, Dreborg K-H, Ekvall T, Finnveden G, Hjelm O (2008) Palm, V. Scenarios in selected tools for environmental systems analysis 16:1958–1970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.01.008CrossRef

Huijbregts M (2002) Uncertainty and variability in environmental life-cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02994052

Huijbregts MAJ (1998) Application of uncertainty and variability in LCA. Part I: a general framework for the analysis of uncertainty and variability in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3(5):273–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02979835

Jones PT, Geysen D, Tielemans Y, Van Passel S, Pontikes Y, Blanpain B, Hoekstra N (2013) Enhanced landfill mining in view of multiple resource recovery: a critical review. J Clean Prod 55:45–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.05.021CrossRef

Jones RN (2001) An environmental risk assessment/management framework for climate change impact assessments 1997–1998

Kaplan S, Garrick B (1981) On the quantitative definition of risk. J Risk Anal 1:11–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1981.tb01350.x

Khakzad N, Khan F, Amyotte P (2012) Dynamic risk analysis using bow-tie approach. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 104:36–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2012.04.003CrossRef

Kjeldsen P, Barlaz MA, Rooker AP, Baun A, Ledin A, Christensen TH (2002) Present and long-term composition of MSW landfill leachate: a review. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 32(4):297–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/10643380290813462CrossRef

Kobayashi Y, Peters GM, Khan SJ (2015) Towards more holistic environmental impact assessment: hybridisation of life cycle assessment and quantitative risk assessment. Procedia CIRP 29:378–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2015.01.064CrossRef

Krook J, Baas L (2013) Getting serious about mining the technosphere: a review of recent landfill mining and urban mining research. J Clean Prod 55:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.04.043CrossRef

Laner D (2009) The consideration of long-term emissions from landfills within life-cycle assessment. Waste Management & Research, (December 2008) 463–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X09102335

Laner D (2011) Understanding and evaluating long-term environmental risks from landfills [online]. PhD Dissertation: 1–225. Retrieved from https://www.wien.gv.at/umweltschutz/nachhaltigkeit/pdf/laner.pdf.Accessed. 26 June 2016

Laner D, Cencic O, Svensson N, Krook J (2016) Quantitative analysis of critical factors for the climate impact of landfill mining. Environ Sci Technol 50:6882–6891. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b01275CrossRef

Laner D, Fellner J, Brunner PH (2009) Flooding of municipal solid waste landfills: an environmental hazard? Sci Total Environ 407(12):3674–3680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.03.006CrossRef

Laner D, Fellner J, Brunner PH (2011a) Environmental compatibility of closed landfills—assessing future pollution hazards. Waste Manage Res 29(1):89–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X10387655

Laner D, Fellner J, Brunner PH (2011b) Future landfill emissions and the effect of final cover installation—a case study. Waste Manage 31(7):1522–1531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.02.022

Laner D, Fellner J, Brunner PH (2012) Site-specific criteria for the completion of landfill aftercare. Waste Manage Res: The Journal of the International Solid Wastes and Public Cleansing Association, ISWA. 30(9 Suppl):88–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X12453610CrossRef

Laurent A, Clavreul J, Bernstad A, Bakas I, Niero M, Gentil E, Hauschild MZ (2014) Review of LCA studies of solid waste management systems—Part II: methodological guidance for a better practice. Waste Manage 34(3):589–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.12.004CrossRef

Linkov I, Trump BD, Wender BA, Seager TP, Kennedy AJ, Keisler JM (2017) Integrate life-cycle assessment and risk analysis results, not methods. Nat Nanotechnol 12(8):740–743. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2017.152CrossRef

Manfredi S, Christensen TH, Scharff H, Jacobs J (2010a) Environmental assessment of low-organic waste landfill scenarios by means of life-cycle assessment modelling (EASEWASTE). Waste Manage Res, (October 2008) 130–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X09104127

Manfredi S, Tonini D, Christensen TH (2009) Landfilling of waste: accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming contributions. Waste Manage Res 27(8):789–799. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242x09348529CrossRef

Manfredi S, Tonini D, Christensen TH (2010b) Contribution of individual waste fractions to the environmental impacts from landfilling of municipal solid waste. Waste Manage 30(3):433–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2009.09.017

Matthews HS, Lave L, Maclean H (2002) Life cycle impact assessment : a challenge for risk analysts CYCLE ASSESSMENT. Risk Analysis 22(5)

Mazzorana B, Hübl J, Fuchs S (2009) Improving risk assessment by defining consistent and reliable system scenarios. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9(1):145–159. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-9-145-2009

Neuhold C, Nachtnebel HP (2011) Assessing flood risk associated with waste disposals: methodology, application and uncertainties. Nat Hazards 56(1):359–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-010-9575-9CrossRef

Obersteiner G, Binner E, Mostbauer P, Salhofer S (2007) Landfill modelling in LCA—a contribution based on empirical data. Waste Manage 27:S58–S74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.02.018CrossRef

Pivato A (2011) Landfill liner failure: an open question for landfill risk analysis. Journal of Environmental Protection 2(May):287–297. https://doi.org/10.4236/jep.2011.23032CrossRef

Rausand M, Hoyland A (2004) System reliability theory

Sauve G, Van Acker K (2020) The environmental impacts of municipal solid waste landfills in Europe: a life cycle assessment of proper reference cases to support decision making. J Environ Manage 261 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110216

Spielmann M, Scholz RW, Tietje O, De Haan P (2005) Scenario modelling in prospective LCA of transport systems: application of formative scenario analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(5):325–335. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2004.10.188CrossRef

Villa V, Paltrinieri N, Khan F, Cozzani V (2016) Towards dynamic risk analysis: a review of the risk assessment approach and its limitations in the chemical process industry. Saf Sci 89:77–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.06.002CrossRef

Wille E (2018) Flooding risks at old landfill sites: linear economy meets climate change. Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Enhanced Landfill Mining, Mechelenl, Belgium, 5–6 February 2018

Winterstetter A, Wille E, Nagels P, Fellner J (2018) Decision making guidelines for mining historic landfill sites in Flanders. Waste Manage 77:225–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.03.049CrossRef

Wolfsberger T, Aldrian A, Sarc R, Hermann R, Höllen D, Budischowsky A, Pomberger R (2015) Landfill mining: resource potential of Austrian landfills—evaluation and quality assessment of recovered municipal solid waste by chemical analyses. Waste Manage Res 33(11):962–974. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X15600051CrossRef

Titel: Integrating life cycle assessment (LCA) and quantitative risk assessment (QRA) to address model uncertainties: defining a landfill reference case under varying environmental and engineering conditions
verfasst von: Giovanna Sauve
Karel Van Acker
Publikationsdatum: 15.02.2021
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment / Ausgabe 3/2021
Print ISSN: 0948-3349
Elektronische ISSN: 1614-7502
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01848-z

Springer Professional

Abstract

Purpose

Method

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2021

Accounting for correlational structures in stochastic comparative life cycle assessments through copula modeling

Sustainability Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise handprint methodological framework

Modelling of different circular end-of-use scenarios for smartphones

Correction to: Reviewing environmental life cycle impacts of biobased polymers: current trends and methodological challenges

Selecting the best product alternative in a sea of uncertainty

An approach to achieve overall farm feed efficiency in pig production: environmental evaluation through individual life cycle assessment